This is a VERY serious problem. IMHO the building of these mosques ought not be allowed period, unless the U.S. government can verify that anti-American and even terrorist propaganda is not being preached there. This should be subject to monitoring as well. Better yet - put an immediate freeze on all new mosque building and require investigations regarding their sponsors before approving them. Let CAIR and the other pro-Muslim groups and the media squeal like stuck pigs all they want. This is quite literally war - and it needs to be treated as such. ISLAM is not simply a "religion" which deserves Constitutional protection. It is a totalitarian ideology that is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-American. It happens to operate under the guise of a religion so that CAIR and other pro-Islamic organizations can hide behind our Constitutional protections with false claims of rights abuses. It's time to call them on it and STOP IT. They are quite literally "destroying Western civilization from within" as an official document from the Muslim Brotherhood states as its ultimate goal.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 02:02:56 PM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Funny, his administration pushed the "workplace violence" label onto Ft. Hood. The Boston bombers were off the FBI'S radar while the force of the federal government was focused on certain conservative groups.

When are enough citizens going to get angry enough about all this to DEMAND Congress do something about it??? I'm FURIOUS. This is not an abstract discussion, as GM's last posted photo shows. American citizens are DYING because of this administration's warped policies. Meanwhile this president and his criminal cronies are persecuting and obstructing his political enemies. What has to happen? Do we need to show up on the White House lawn en masse with torches and pitchforks and force him out?

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

I like to think that our efforts here make a difference. Look at the reads per post ratio on the relevant threads. I suspect most people who read this forum to be well above average IQ and education and likely to be influential in their respective social and business circles.

A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed an imam's claim that the Illinois State Police (ISP) discriminated against him when it rescinded the imam's appointment to be a volunteer chaplain.

Kifah Mustapha's appointment as the ISP's first Muslim chaplain was reversed after the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported in January 2010 that he was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas financing trial which ended with sweeping convictions in November of 2008. Mustapha was identified as a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Hamas support network in the United States, and was a paid employee of the network's official fundraising arm, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Records show he spent five years as the charity's "sole employee in its Illinois office."

Mustapha, an imam at the Mosque Foundation in the Chicago suburb of Bridgeview, did not tell the state police about his Holy Land Foundation connections when he originally applied for the chaplain's post. He passed an initial review and announced his appointment.

But state police officials took a second look after reading the IPT report. They verified the information about Mustapha's Holy Land Foundation work and saw a videotape entered into evidence which showed Mustapha singing a song praising Hamas and jihad.

An FBI official told state police that Mustapha would not pass their background check for a similar position. The ISP rescinded Mustapha's appointment, and he sued. He tried to attack the IPT's credibility as part of his litigation.

He also claimed "that he condemns Hamas and any suicide bombings, and instead he teaches against terrorism," U.S. District Judge Ronald A. Guzman wrote in his order granting the state summary judgment.

During a deposition, Mustapha claimed the video, showing a child holding a machine gun on stage as Mustapha and others sing, "O Hamas, raise the banner of Jihad … through it or through martyrdom," was not an endorsement of the terrorist group, but actually meant something quite benign. When the singers name Hamas, he said, they were "referring to the Palestinian people, that Hamas means 'excitement' in Arabic and the use of the word 'jihad' in the song related to the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom and equality," Guzman wrote. Mustapha "acknowledged that others might interpret the invocation of 'Hamas' as referring to the terrorist organization."

But the ISP saw the video quite differently.

"We saw this particular candidate, you know, up on the stage singing about Jihad and martyrdom, and . . . with children in view of the camera and they're passing around the rifle and dancing and kind of celebrating the rifle and appearing to celebrate . . . Jihad and martyrdom," former state police Acting Director Jonathon Monken said during a deposition.

While Guzman wrote he was not judging the facts of the case, he found that concerns about hiring Mustapha by the state police were "well-founded given the [IPT's] earlier blog entry posted soon after Plaintiff went through chaplain orientation criticizing the ISP for selecting Plaintiff given his purported ties to terrorism."

Mustapha also claimed he was discriminated against due to his religion and ethnicity. But, Guzman noted, the state police originally hired Mustapha knowing his heritage and that he is a Muslim. "It was only after finding out about Plaintiff's past conduct, i.e., that he had been employed by HLF, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism trial, appeared in a video in which individuals are toting guns and chanting 'O, Hamas, teach us the rifle' and 'O, Hamas, raise the banner of jihad,' and learned that Plaintiff would not pass the background check to be a volunteer chaplain with the FBI that the ISP decided not to retain Plaintiff as a volunteer chaplain."Mustapha was represented by attorneys for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which similarly was implicated in the Holy Land case as part of a Muslim Brotherhood-orchestrated Hamas support network in the United States. Internal documents show CAIR was a member of the Palestine Committee, and two CAIR founders appeared on a Palestine Committee telephone list.

Mustapha continues to help CAIR raise money, leading the fundraising portion of the CAIR-Chicago chapter's annual banquet last month.

Their filings claimed Mustapha had no knowledge of what the Holy Land Foundation did with its money, that the original IPT report was a dubious source, and that Mustapha – despite the court evidence – is a peaceful man who preaches against terrorism. Letters of support from Arab and Muslim organizations that Guzman reviewed portray Mustapha as "one of the most influential Islamic leaders in Illinois and a role model to Muslim youth and adults."

Those groups appear to have put all their eggs in Mustapha's basket, despite the record.

If the ISP still has no Muslim chaplain, it is not for lack of effort, Guzman wrote. After determining Mustapha was unacceptable, state police sought other candidates. No one applied, "and the only responses the ISP received in response to requests for additional candidates made to Muslim organizations throughout Illinois were recommendations in support of" Mustapha.

The White House's National Security Council has confirmed that staffers held a June 13 meeting with Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, an Islamist cleric who shares leadership of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, where he is vice-president and the terror supporter Yusuf al-Qaradawi is president. The meeting occurred on the same day the Obama administration announced plans to arm Syria's rebel factions, in the wake of a determination that President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which released a report Late Tuesday covering the circumstances of the meeting, wrote that bin Bayyah has referred to the anti-Semitic Islamist al-Qaradawi 'as "a mountain upon whose peak there is light" and as "a great reformer" who "spreads knowledge and wisdom."'

MailOnline saw a late draft of that report.

'Like many in the global Muslim Brotherhood movement who pose as moderates to the press and to liberal intellectuals by issuing condemnations of al-Qaida,' it read in part, 'Bin Bayyah refuses to label the acts of groups such as Hamas, Hizballah or Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terrorism.'

He has also issued 'an endorsement of the push by Muslim intellectuals to criminalize blasphemy against the Muslim prophet Muhammad and Islam,' the group reported.

Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council, met with Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah on June 13

Bin Bayyah (2nd L) released this photo on his website, showing the June 13 meeting with Obama administration officials including Gayle Smith (2nd R) and Rashad Hussain (4th L)

Bin Bayyah wrote on his website in the days following that meeting that he 'visited the White House where he met with Ms. Gayle Smith, a senior aide to President Barack Obama, and Mr. Rashad Hussain, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.'

'He also met with a number of experts,' that claim continued, 'including the director of public relations in the White House, the national security adviser, and representatives from seven government agencies.'

Smith is Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council. Hussain is the lawyer tapped to implement the 'new beginning with Muslims around the world' which President Obama promised during a June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt.

Bin Bayyah cultivates an image as a Muslim moderate despite his views. Al-Qaradawi, meanwhile, is a more vocal proponent of Muslim suicide bombers killing Jews, especially in portions of Israel that Palestinians claim as their territory.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi (R), shown with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (L), leads the International Union of Muslim Scholars. His second-in-command, Abdallah bin Bayyah, was welcomed into the White House on June 13. Al-Qaradawi is generally considered the leading Islamic scholar affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. He has called openly for the destruction of Israel and the deaths of all Jews, called Adolf Hitler a divine punishment for the 'misdeeds of the Jews' and claimed the Nazi Holocaust has been popularly exaggerated.

Al-Qaradawi has also said he wants to die 'in the service of jihad' by blowing himself up in Israel and killing Jews in the process.

'I have supported [suicide bombings] for the past 20 years,' he said in 2008.

'I do not automatically support martyrdom operations,' he continued. "I permit them under specific constraints, when necessary, like in the case of our Palestinian brothers who are forced to defend themselves by turning themselves into bombs.'

The two clerics' close association has caused reputational trouble for bin Bayyah among Western governments, and the U.S. State Department has denied al-Qaradawi entry into the country since 1999. But the Obama administration welcomed bin Bayyah into the White House.

Bin Bayyah's own views about Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli targets may have made inviting him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a difficult call.

Barack Obama has made overtures to the Israel lobby since the days of his first presidential candidacy, but members of his national security team met secretly with the vice president of a leading anti-Israel group this month

Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, circled in red, is shown at the December 2012 International Union of Muslim Scholars' board meeting in Doha, Qatar. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is shown to his left (camera-right). The meeting ended with a call for the destruction of the state of Israel

'That the Obama Administration would invite to the United States a radical Muslim cleric whose organization supports terrorism and whose leaders have issued fatwas calling for the killing of Americans and Jews is beyond comprehension.,' Investigative Project on Terrorism executive director Steve Emerson told MailOnline.

Emerson called on Congress to investigate 'immediately.'

'In my 30 years of covering terrorism, I have never in my life been so appalled and outraged at what can only be called criminal behavior by this administration,' he said.NSC communications director Caitlin Hayden told MailOnline in an email that she was 'unfamiliar with this meeting,' but later allowed that she was 'not disputing it.'

Separately, a senior administration official confirmed to MailOnline that 'Gayle Smith and members of the National Security Staff met with Shaykh Bin Bayyah to discuss a wide range of issues including poverty, global health efforts, and Bin Bayyah's efforts to counter the al Qaeda narrative. Ms. Smith stated that she looked forward to working with him, and with other faith leaders on issues of mutual interest.'

Abdallah bin Bayyah's English-language website initially reported that 'the national security adviser' of the U.S., Tom Donilon, was a participant in the June 13 meeting

After MailOnline inquired with the White House, but before bin Bayyah's organization was approached, the 'national security adviser' language disappearedYusuf al-Qaradawi praises Hitler

Yusuf al-Qaradawi claimed in 2009 that the Nazi Holocaust was a 'divine punishment' directed at Jews. Abdallah bin Bayyah, who met with National Security Council staff in the White House, is al-Qaradawi's deputy as vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which al-Qaradawi leads

The account of the meeting on bin Bayyah's website also mentions that he 'called for the protection of the Syrian people and the Muslim minority in Myanmar.'

But less than 12 hours after MailOnline made inquiries with the NSC, that account was altered to remove any reference to National Security Adviser Tom Donilon having attended the meeting. The site still claims 'the director of public relations in the White House' - likely a reference to communications director Jennifer Palmieri - did attend.There has been no confirmation from the White House or from bin Bayyah that either Palmieri or Donilon participated in the June 13 meeting.

A second web page on bin Bayyah's site was also changed within hours of MailOnline's inquiries.

According to translations provided by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, an Arabic language account of the June 13 meeting originally mentioned the 'Director of Public Relations in the White House' and 'the National Security Adviser.' It was changed to refer to 'Deputy Director of Public Relations in the White House' and 'Deputy National Security Adviser.'

The National Security Council would not confirm the attendance of any specific West Wing deputy.

Rashad Hussain, US envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, is the Obama administration official tasked with rebooting America's relationships in the Muslim world

During an April 2013 TV interview, prominent International Union of Muslim Scholars member Tareq Hawwas wished openly of Europe's Jews that 'Hitler had finished them off, thus relieving humanity of them'

Any connection with the International Union of Muslim Scholars could be problematic for the Obama administration, since that organization ended its December 2012 board meeting by calling for all of Israel to be returned to Palestinians, and for the return of those Palestinians who were exiled after the Israeli War of Independence in 1948.Its most prominent members have also expressed openly anti-Semitic views.

Lebanese Islamic scholar Tareq Hawwas, for instance, said in April on Al-Quds TV that Jews 'are cowards' and 'the most miserly of all peoples ... If only Hitler had finished them off, thus relieving humanity of them.'

And Hamas parliament member Marwan Abu Ras, another International Union of Muslim Scholars member, claimed on the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV that 'Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. ... Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth, the Jews must be behind it.'

That assessment came on Sept. 12, 2012, as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya lay in ruins and ashes.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for information about whether it recommended against issuing a visa to bin Bayyah for his June 13 meeting. Typically, a former DHS official told MailOnline, that agency would have been consulted before the state Department began the process to clear him for entry into the country.

Speaking of the International union of Muslim Scholars, the Investigative Project on Terrorism's Emerson claimed 'the United States Government has just legitimized a group that is basically no different that Hamas or Hizbollah, except that this group is the one issuing the religious edicts to those Islamic terrorist groups to carry out jihad against Israel and the United States.'

'This is the equivalent of inviting Al Qaeda to the White House.'

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

Robert's summary of this is in my opinion the most concise - but this story has been posted all over the Internet on counter-jihad blogs and web sites, as well as on Facebook:

Britain Bans Freedom FightersPosted By Robert Spencer On June 27, 2013

Wednesday morning I received an official letter from the British Home Office, notifying me that I would not be allowed to enter the country on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” My colleague Pamela Geller received a similar letter. We had planned to lay a wreath at a memorial to British soldier Lee Rigby, who was beheaded by Islamic jihadists on a Woolwich street on May 22. But it is not conducive to the public good in Britain to oppose jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

For that is why the ban came down. The Home Office’s letter to me said:

You are reported to have stated the following:

[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.

I said no such thing, of course. I generally speak and write in coherent English. But the point is clear enough. I certainly have pointed out that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. This is not really a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam at all. One man who has done so has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

What venomous Islamophobe said that? Omar Ahmad, cofounder of the “civil rights” organization known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another notorious hatemonger explained that “the Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” That Islamophobe was Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown.

Yet another anti-Muslim bigot was Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, says that the leader of the Muslims “makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” and cites Qur’an 9:29 in support of this idea: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o9.

Oh, the Islamophobia! How did it penetrate even to the hallowed halls of al-Azhar? How did all these Islamic scholars get the hateful idea that Islam teaches warfare and subjugation, which the British Home Secretary knows is an idea not conducive to the public good?

Ultimately, it’s unclear how all these (and many other) venerable authorities on Islam came to misunderstand it in such an Islamophobic way, but in any case, it is a good thing Home Secretary Theresa May is keeping all this Islamophobia and hatred out of Britain. Britons will not be subjected to hateful misrepresentations of Islam like this spectacularly noxious bit of Islamophobia:

Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.

You may be wondering if it was I or Pamela Geller who penned that hate-filled misrepresentation of the beautiful Islamic doctrine of jihad. But in fact, it was neither one of us. It was Mohammed al-Arefe, a Saudi Muslim cleric who believes that shedding Infidel blood and smashing Infidel skulls is pleasing to his god.

Apparently believing that such violence is an Islamic imperative is just fine with the British Home Office as long as one does so approvingly: Mohammed al-Arefe was just last week admitted into Britain without any difficulty. If one believes that such violence is an Islamic imperative but opposes it, however, watch out: that is not conducive to the public good.

Thus Britain has not actually banned the truth about Islam. You can get into Britain if you believe that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. You just have to think warfare against unbelievers is a fine thing to pursue.

And thus the foremost lesson arising from the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer is this: the unbelievers in Britain don’t stand a chance.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:56:04 AM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Americans banned from Britain based on (anti-)free speech censorship and Islamist extremism appeasement. I can't imagine what the Obama administrations' reaction to this will be, defending the Americans! Will he take back the hope and change speeches he sent to them in an unreadable format? Send back the Churchill bust - again? Worse??

Hahahahahaha AS IF Obama gives a damn. I'm sure he is on the exact same page as the British bureaucrat who sent this. He hates Spencer and Geller as much as any other person who criticizes Islam. Not to mention that Spencer and Geller have printed reams of damaging information about Obama on their respective blogs. Good one, Doug...

« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 02:20:30 PM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty: At this point I am not surprised at anything the New York Times prints. In my humble opinion, it's a rag suitable only for use as a birdcage liner. I remember this story from 2010, as I seem to recall that both Geller and Spencer linked to it as just another example of how ignorant and gullible the mainstream media is when it comes to Islam. I do not, however, think that Obama is naive on this matter. He's quite literally moving toward a totalitarian model for this nation. He views Islamists as allies in the task of dismantling and weakening the existing U.S. government and Constitution.

Mark my words - just as with other despots, Obama will not reveal his true intentions until a "trigger event" occurs (such as another massive terror attack) and he then uses that event as a justification to impose martial law. I don't believe the man has any intention of ever leaving office.

The mainstream press in this country is effectively marching itself into the gas chamber. These idiots don't realize that they will be among the first to be terrorized and told exactly what they are and are not allowed to print or broadcast. There is a reason that Chavez and Obama got along so well. Obama dreams about essentially duplicating what Chavez did in Venezuela here in the United States.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 01:20:30 PM by objectivist1 »

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

"Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers."

A rally outside the White House Friday offered a clear example of the Muslim Brotherhood's "Grand Deception" in action in America. To a casual observer, it appeared that a few dozen people came out to support ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Protesters shouted his name and spoke passionately about democracy and how they think it was violated in Cairo.

Signs like "We love Morsi" and "Egyptian Americans Support Democracy" made it seem Morsi was a beloved and unifying figure. In Egypt, opposition to his rule triggered massive street demonstrations considered among the largest in history.

Nobody at the White House rally mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Morsi emerged a year ago to become president. No one referred to Morsi's attempts to monopolize power for the Brotherhood via edicts and appointments – moves that fueled widespread discontent and drove millions of protesters to the streets of Egypt.

But an examination of the rally's organizers and speakers shows deep connections to the Brotherhood, an 80-year-old religious and political movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic Caliphate governed by Shari'ah, or Islamic law. Its motto: "Allah is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes."

The July 5 rally was organized by the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center of Falls Church, Va. mosque that has been home to some notable Islamic extremists. Law enforcement records obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 2010 show it has served as "a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.," and "has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing."

It was home to the late American-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki before he left the United States.

Dar al-Hijrah also has a long history of supporting both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. One of the mosque's founders and former imams, Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Adam el-Sheikh, also founded the Brotherhood-related Muslim American Society (MAS) along with former Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Mahdi Akef. (Reports claim that Akef was among the Muslim Brotherhood leaders arrested during the July 4 roundup.)

MAS and Dar al-Hijrah have shared several leaders. For example, former MAS President Esam Omeish served on the mosque's board of directors. Omeish had to resign from a Virginia immigration board in 2007 after he was seen on videotape praising Palestinians who chose "the jihad way" to liberation. And Imam Shaker Elsayed is a former MAS secretary-general. In a 2004 profile of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Elsayed praised Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna, saying that his ideas are "the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life." Earlier this year, Elsayed told an Ethiopian group that Muslim men should be "the first in jihad line."

At the White House rally, the former director of the MAS political arm, Mahdi Bray, spoke first amid chants of "Democracy!" and "[in Arabic] Wake up Al-Sisi, Morsi is President!"

"We will join our voices, we will join them together, we will join them together as Muslims, Christians, Jews, secular, wherever there are people, wherever people care about democracy and justice, we'll raise our voices together," Bray said.

Bray has repeatedly defended alleged terrorists and, during a previous rally near the White House, proudly raised his hands in support of both Hamas and Hizballah.

Joining Bray at the pro-Morsi rally was Mauri Saalakhan, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who has defended former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and blames Israel and its supporters for a host of global problems. Like Bray, his message seemed benign.

"We don't want to see more bloodshed in Egypt," Saalakhan said. "We don't want to see more hardship in the way of how we are viewed in this country and around the world as a result of our wrongheaded policies in that part of the world."

What Saalakhan left out was that he views Hamas as a "resistance organization – whose armed resistance is legitimized by clearly established international law!" He previously appeared on Iranian television to say that Nidal Hasan's shooting massacre at Fort Hood was "not an act of terrorism, it was an act of war on the soldiers of a military installation."

Given the organizers' connections and the speakers' histories, the July 5 rally appears to be more about rallying to defend the Muslim Brotherhood than about any high-minded rhetoric about democracy. Islamists must believe they can't persuade Americans with a direct appeal, so they continue with their Grand Deception and hope no one will notice.

Frank Spano serves as the Director of National Security Policy for The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

In the United States, Ashrafuzzaman Khan ostensibly is a respected Muslim cleric, president of the Imams of America association and past secretary general of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

In Bangladesh, a court is hearing evidence alleging that Khan is a war criminal, someone who helped draft a list of intellectuals who would later be kidnapped and killed in the final days of the 1971 war of liberation against Pakistan.

Khan, 65, is being tried in absentia. Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal ruled last month that "there are sufficient and substantial materials" to warrant proceeding to trial against him on 11 war crimes counts.

He remains on the executive board of ICNA's New York chapter and has not commented publicly on the allegations. He is being tried along with Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, a prominent imam in the United Kingdom who helped create the Muslim Council of Britain.

The two are accused of leading a killing squad called Al-Badar, which was an offshoot of the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. The Islamists supported Pakistan during the war. As many as 3 million people died in battle for independence and millions more sought refuge in neighboring India. In its final days in December 1971, dozens of intellectuals – journalists, doctors, professors and others – were systematically rounded up. They were taken from their homes at gunpoint and later found in a mass grave. In some cases, the charging papers say, the bodies were never recovered.

"Al-Badar acted as 'killing squad', in furtherance of plan and policy of Pakistani occupation army," the Tribunal's prosecution wrote. Khan was the "'chief executor' of Al-Badar to the accomplishment of the barbaric crimes, in furtherance of common plan and design, with intent to paralyze the Bengali nation."

Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a documentary on Bangladesh's war of independence and the resulting atrocities which can be seen here.

Khan allegedly was on a central committee for the Jamaat-e-Islami's student wing, called Islami Chatra Sangha. The names of many victims were found in a diary found in Khan's home after he fled the country.

Khan's court-appointed attorney denies the charges, saying the Pakistani army was responsible for the killings and that Khan was never in Al-Badar.

So far, three witnesses have placed Khan at the scene of abductions:

1. Masuda Banu Ratna – whose uncle Giasuddin Ahmed was taken at gunpoint from Dhaka University – said she knew Khan and Mueen-Uddin from student political activities and recognized them when they came for her uncle. His body was found three weeks later, dumped in a mass grave.

2. Enamul Huq Khan testified that his father, a history professor, was taken from their home by a handful of men at gunpoint. He said he later was told by a man who was driving the Al-Badar squad around that Khan pulled the trigger and killed his father. He didn't know Khan at the time, but said he recognized him the following year when a newspaper published pictures of Khan and Mueen-Uddin with a caption "help to capture the killers."

3. The son of slain journalist Selina Parvin said Mueen-Uddin and Khan were among those who took her away from their home on Dec. 13, 1971.

The Tribunal has faced some criticism, and its rulings sparked violent protests led by Jamaat-e-Islami. More than 80 people died after the Tribunal sentenced Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi to death in March.

Talk of Khan being charged has circulated for years. A report also indicated that the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations was investigating Khan to determine if he failed to mention his activities when he applied for U.S. residency and naturalization.

ICNA, the organization he led, was founded by South Asian Muslims. Its constitution draws heavily from the Jamaat-e-Islami and its curriculum emphasizes writings by Jamaat founder Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Maududi advocated that Muslims "must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God."

Khan offered a similar sentiment in greeting people to ICNA's 1999 convention. Muslims, he wrote in the convention program, "have a culture and civilization which once ruled the world and still has the viability to rule the world again."

Khan has not publicly addressed the charges against him and ICNA has not commented since last month's charges were accepted. In a March statement, it dismissed the tribunal's existence as a purely political effort "to silence opposition figures" and said its actions amount to human rights violations. Mueen-Uddin has posted a statement denying all the charges against him and ridiculing the Tribunal.

It is unclear what happens if Khan is convicted. The United States has no extradition treaty with Bangladesh, and U.S. Ambassador for Global Justice Stephen J. Rapp has been among those taking issue with some of the Tribunal's standards. If the United States is satisfied with the evidence, or even if it can be proven that Khan was a part of Al-Badar and failed to disclose that fact on immigration papers, his interaction with the courts may be just beginning.

In "Jesus vs. Muhammad – scholarship vs. propaganda" at WND today, Pamela Geller compares the media treatment of my book about the historicity of Muhammad and Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan's about the historicity of Jesus:

It is critical to point out a small but stunning example of the low state of legitimate public discourse today.Not so long ago, Robert Spencer, one of the world’s leading scholars on Islam, wrote an extraordinary book entitled “Did Muhammad Exist?” It was a brilliant, original and scholarly work investigating the legitimate questions surrounding the historical value of the early Islamic texts about Muhammad. Spencer pulled together information from ancient documents with linguistic and archaeological data in a remarkable re-evaluation of Islam’s origins.

Robert Spencer is a writer without peer and a nonpareil scholar, the author of 12 books on Islam, jihad and related topics, including two New York Times bestsellers. Yet “Did Muhammad Exist?” was ignored and dismissed by the intelligentsia, the media elite and subversive academia.

Juxtapose that to the recent adulation heaped upon the Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan for his new book. Aslan is an advisory board member of the National Iranian American Council, which has been recently exposed in court as a lobbying group for the Iranian regime. He has smeared and lied about Spencer and me on national television, and responded to Spencer’s reasoned rebuttals with homophobic abuse worthy of a seventh-grader: “I must tell you that I’m flattered but you’re really not my type. … If I send you a picture, will that satisfy your lust for a while?”

In March 2012, a Muslim woman, Shaima Alawadi, was found murdered with a note next to her body saying that she should go back where she came from. Aslan immediately accused Spencer and me of inciting the murder, tweeting a semi-literate rant: “If a 32 yr old veiled mother is a terrorist than [sic] so am I you Islamophobic f–ks Gellar [sic] Spencer et. [sic] al. Come find me.”

Recently this immature creep wrote a book (or more likely, had it written for him) about Jesus, with the pejorative title “Zealot.” The enemedia machine is in full throttle to deliver this seditious hater a bestseller. In what can only have been inspired by the Goebbels template, Reza Aslan will not only be on the Bill Maher show and “The Daily Show,” but this subversive lowlife will be speaking at universities like NYU, Ohio State and the University of Southern California, as well as at numerous public libraries and (gasp) synagogues like Temple Judea in Palm Beach, at upwards of $30,000 a pop. Despite denying basic Christian doctrines, he is speaking at several churches and even preaching the Sunday sermon at one.

You should ask yourself, how did we get here? How can a reasonable, educated and pre-eminent scholar like Robert Spencer be relegated to the very fringe (if that) of the literary world, while jihadist operatives like the vicious Reza Aslan are carried on the shoulders of the media and intelligentsia like a football hero at the end of an impossibly fought game.

Who would have imagined that 12 years after 9/11 the media and academic elite would laud this pro-nuclear Khomeinist? He is funded by who knows who, and he employs vicious trolls who spend their days spreading libel and defamation about Spencer and other freedom fighters, much the way the wicked witch of the west used the flying monkeys – and they, too, are very well paid.

Remember also: Spencer’s book was accurately and forthrightly entitled, “Did Muhammad Exist?” It’s a legitimate question, even though on the BBC recently an interviewer tried to badger Spencer into admitting that there was something wrong, and offensive to Muslims, with even investigating this historical question. Reza Aslan, on the other hand, refers negatively to Jesus in his title as “Zealot.” Clearly, Robert could have entitled his book “Pedophile,” because we know that Muhammad’s favorite wife was taken at the age of 6 and that their “marriage” was consummated when the Muslim prophet was 54 and she was 9. Spencer could also have called his book “Annihilator,” because we know that Muhammad slaughtered an entire Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, by beheading. Surely Spencer exercised restraint in not entitling his book “Bloody Warmonger.” Any of these would have been the equivalent of Aslan’s title “Zealot.”

But although Spencer didn’t entitle his book any of those things, and “Did Muhammad Exist?” is a straightforward, dispassionate historical investigation, the media treated it as if it were the one that was designed solely to denigrate and disparage the founder of a religion. That is not true of Spencer’s book, but it is true of Aslan’s screed “Zealot.” Yet the media never comment on the derogatory title of Aslan’s book. It is just fine with the media to speak negatively about Jesus, deny his historicity, deny his importance, denigrate his teachings and more. But any true word that is spoken about Muhammad, whether it be about how he is depicted in Islamic texts or about the historical value of those texts, is viciously attacked.

Those who are doing the attacking will one day fall victim to the very ideology that they are fronting for today. Subversives like Reza Aslan, when they’re through counting their millions, will make sure of that.

Posted by Robert on July 24, 2013 2:12 PM

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Charlotte’s revulsion over Huma Abedin’s calculated “stand by your man” routine is surely right. Still, it is amazing, as we speculate about Ms. Abedin’s political future, that the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, or at least studiously unmentioned.

Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.

Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.

Back to daughter Huma. In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University

has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:

The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures. The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt. Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States. The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam. The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism. The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections. The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country. On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”

As more recent events remind us, this is not an exhaustive account of Obama-administration coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is just some of the lowlights.

When a handful of House conservatives tried to draw the attention of the State Department’s inspector general to some of these matters – wondering how on earth someone with Ms. Abdein’s background could have qualified for a top-secret security clearance – they were castigated by the Obama White House and the Beltway Republican establishment. As reaffirmed in the last 24 hours, Ms. Abedin’s connections to prominent Islamic-supremacist figures and groups are deemed unsuitable for public discussion – Egyptians may be able to eject the Muslim Brotherhood, but in today’s Washington it is raising questions about the Muslim Brotherhood that gets you run out of town.

Naturally, what did get Washington chattering was a scandal far more typical in Clinton circles — the lucrative arrangement Ms. Abedin struck with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department that allowed her, after returning from maternity leave, to draw a $135,000 State Department salary while remaining in New York, not actually working at Foggy Bottom, and moonlighting as a “strategic consultant” for an outfit called Teneo – founded by Bill Clinton’s chum Doug Band.

What a racket. The marriage to Huma Abedin, a Clinton insider, enables Anthony Weiner to resurrect a debased career and deflect attention from his psychotic antics even as he continues them. The marriage to Anthony Weiner, a prominent Jewish progressive, enables Huma Abedin to deflect attention from her associations with various Islamic supremacists even as, during her tenure as a top State Department official, American policy embraces Islamic supremacists.

The completion of a new mosque in Amsterdam is doing more than opening the doors of worship to Dutch Muslims; it is opening new windows into unexpected avenues of terrorist financing and funding for the growth of radical Islam in the West.

For years, Western counterterrorism officials and pundits have expressed concern about the sponsorship of European and American mosques, Islamic schools, and other Muslim organizations by the Saudi government in efforts to its own extremist version of Islam, Wahhabism. Wahhabis adhere to strict, literal interpretations of the Quran and defend the use of violence against those who do not – Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Now, however, it seems we've been so focused on the Saudis, we may have missed a potentially even greater source of radicalization, and certainly a fast-growing one: the Muslim Brotherhood. And the government of Kuwait, with ties to al-Qaida groups and Hamas, appears to be among the largest financiers of Brotherhood infiltration into Europe.This is where the Amsterdam mosque comes in. Located in the largely Muslim neighborhood of Sloterdijk, the Blue Mosque has been the subject of controversy in the Dutch press since its conception. A report that the government of Kuwait was paying salaries to its imam and other officers recently propelled the mosque – and its organization – into the headlines. Those reports have since been challenged, but the gist of them remains true: through a pan-European organization called the Europe Trust, Kuwait is tying Dutch and other European Muslims directly into the Muslim Brotherhood via complex financial, non-profit and religious networks that stretch from Spain to Ireland – and across the Atlantic to New York.

Based in the UK, the Europe Trust is funded largely by Kuwait (with help from the UAE-based Makhtoum Foundation, about which, more later), and, according to the Middle East Quarterly, "channels money from the Persian Gulf to groups sympathetic to the Brotherhood in Europe, primarily to build mosques." Indeed, the Blue Mosque was funded entirely by Kuwait, working through the offices of the Europe Trust Nederland (ETN). Others have tied the Europe Trust to the Brotherhood as well; but particularly notable is the fact that the Trust is led by Ahmed Al-Rawi, a UK-based Muslim Brotherhood leader, and Nooh al Kaddo, a Dublin-based Iraqi who runs the Islamic Cultural Center of Ireland (ICCI), well known as a Brotherhood institution. The ICCI also houses the European Council of Fatwa and Research, whose director, the Egyptian cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi, has reportedly "defended suicide bombing and advocated the death sentence for homosexuals, according to the Irish Independent. (Kaddo, for his part, defends Qaradawi, describing his views in the Independent as "representative of Islamic teachings and not assumed to be a violation of same.")

But here's what else: al-Kaddo, who serves as a trustee of the Hamas-linked charity, Human Appeal International, also directs the largest mosque in Western Europe: the Al Salam mosque in Rotterdam, a controversial monument whose 50-meter high minarets form the highest point in the city. And like the ICCI, Al Salam (also known as Essalam) was financed entirely by Hamdan ben Rashid Al-Makhtoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and (conveniently) UAE Minister of Finance. Makhtoum, as it happens, also is a generous donor to Hamas-linked CAIR in the U.S. (The Sheik has also provided funds for other European mosques.)

Thirty-five miles away, Amsterdam's Blue Mosque also has al-Kaddo to thank for his efforts to secure the money that built it – an achievement made possible in part through his affiliation with Yahia Bouyafa, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Netherlands and director (among other things) of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in the Netherlands (FION). FION, in turn, is a member of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) – which the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report identifies as a Brotherhood umbrella group that also embraces al-Kaddo's Europe Trust – and thus the Al Salam mosque in Rotterdam.

All in the same web. But there's more.

According to a fact sheet published by the Blue Mosque itself, a partnership developed early in the planning stages placed the ETN and FION – or al-Kaddo and Bouyafa – in charge of raising funds for the building. Bouyafa approached Kuwait's Ministry of Religious Affairs. But when his proposal was rejected, another local imam, Yassin Elforkani – suspected of ties to the Brotherhood – was called in to take over. With a few clever alterations to the construction and financing plan, Elforkani convinced Kuwait to provide the needed €2 million.

But with Kuwait now owning the building, sponsoring the ETN, and with extensive ties to Kaddo and Bouyafa (who has regularly exchanged places with Elforkani as director of FION and of the mosque board), the next step was inevitable: the appointment of Kuwaiti Minister for Religious Affairs (Awaqf) Mutlaq al-Qarawi, as chairman of the European Trust Nederland.

This means that one of the most active Muslim organizations in the Netherlands is now led not by a Dutch citizen, not even by a Dutch-speaking foreign imam, but by the government of Kuwait. More specifically, the Trust now sits in the hands of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Affairs, which takes as its mandate spread of Islam to nonbelievers (dawah).

The Europe Trust has also not limited itself to Northern Europe: the NEFA Foundation has tied the group to properties in France, Greece, Romania, and Germany, where, NEFA notes, "funds for real estate purchased […] on behalf of a German Islamic association also came from the Makhtoum Foundation as well as the Awaqf Ministry [Ministry of Religious Affairs] in Kuwait and the Bayt al-Zakat in Dubai."

If all this sounds remote for Americans, too far across the oceans to matter very much, think again. According to a 2003 statement from former National Security and Counter-terrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, "several Al Qida operatives have allegedly been associated with the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood," including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramsi Yousef, a key figure in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

What's more, Clarke testified, "The Kuwaiti government allegedly provides substantial funding to charities controlled by the Kuwait Muslim Brotherhood, such as Lajnat al-Dawa. The U.S. Department of Treasury and the United Nations Security Council designated Lajnat al-Dawa on January 9, 2003 as a supporter of Al Qida. Lajnat al-Dawa and its affiliates had offices in the U.S. in Michigan, Colorado, and Northern Virginia."

If that's not enough, cables published by Wikileaks regarding the problems of policing money flowing to terrorist groups are even more damning. The New York Times summed up a series of these cables, which described Kuwait, the only Gulf country where terrorist funding has not been criminalized, as "a key transit point."

Other ties have been suggested between U.S. mosques and the Brotherhood, most notably the renowned Islamic Cultural Center in New York, founded by Egyptian-born Muhammad Abdul Rauf – father of former Ground Zero Mosque/Park51 imam Faisal Rauf – and funded in large measure by the Kuwaiti government.

Meanwhile, al-Kaddo, with continuing support from the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, is gathering funds for even more mosques throughout Europe. While the ETN, he insists, does not define the positions of those mosques, it does use its power to hire, appoint, and fire each mosque's officers and imams – all carefully selected from an inside Brotherhood group – and many of whom have ties to Hamas or al-Qaida.

With Europe now becoming one of the richest resources for Islamic jihad, and with the free ability of its citizens to travel visa-free to the United States, the threat a growing, radicalized European Brotherhood network poses is a lot closer than it seems.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

On Friday, October 11, a Muslim convert who calls himself Hasan Abu Omar Ghannoum was taken off a terror-bound bus in California and arrested for aiding and abetting the jihadi group al-Qaeda. Another Muslim busted for jihad in America.

This is hardly new or unique. We see these reports daily. Muslims and converts to Islam wage jihad in the cause of Islam. They cite the Quran, chapter and verse. Muslims worldwide continue the 1,400-year-old war to impose Islam across the world -- all citing the same Islamic texts and teachings.

There is a problem in Islam.

So what is the response of the Muslim community?

On the same day that Hassan Abu Omar Ghannoum was arrested, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California issued a statement: "We share the collective concern for the safety of our communities and security of our nation." However, it went on to say: "We ask that law enforcement officials and members of the media refrain from assuming that the alleged criminal's wrongful conduct, if any, was a product of his self-proclaimed faith or associations with members of the southern California Muslim community."

Obfuscation, cover-up, and deceit. The bottom line is that they know exactly what Ghannoum is doing and why. Ghannoum's brother said that after converting to Islam, Ghannoum had gone to Lebanon to learn more about the religion: "He wanted to view more of the religious things. Firsthand experience." His sister said that he went to Syria to study the Quran. While there, he began posting on Facebook about how he was fighting alongside the jihad forces there, bragging about his "first confirmed kill" and writing: "So pumped to get more!!"

The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California never mentioned the possibility that Ghannoum's study of the Quran inspired him to wage jihad. They just warned everyone else not to consider that possibility. Did the Shura Council call for the expunging in the Quran of the violent texts that call for jihad? No.

We never see that from Muslim groups. What we do see is this Islamic pattern of stealth jihad. Muslim Brotherhood groups issue pro-forma, fill-in-the-blank condemnations after jihadi attacks or arrests (e.g., the Boston bombing), but they never address the Islamic texts that inspire jihad -- nor do they attempt to organize programs that intervene in the recruitment of young Muslims or Muslim converts to jihad. What are the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, et al. doing to stop the mosques preaching and teaching jihad? Nothing. Instead, these Muslim groups urge Muslims not to talk to law enforcement (as with the notorious CAIR poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI), and they seek to dismantle counter-terror programs in the USA.

And this isn't the only example of Muslim groups' denial and obfuscation. The United Muslim Nations International (UMNI) group asked the South African media to stop using terms like "Islamist" to describe jihad attacks such as the recent one in Nairobi's Westgate Mall. South African Muslim leader Ganief Hendricks said that "the biased terminology of editors" was "not helpful," and added: "What happened in Nairobi, in the mall attack, may have been a bank robbery gone wrong, using Islam as a cover-up."

Here again we see Islamic supremacism even among the "moderates." Why is UMNI asking the media not to use terms like "Islamist"? So as not to incite jihad? The jihadists can separate the victims by religion in the Nairobi Westgate Mall, and Muslims are released (and this is not new; we saw this in Algeria, Mumbai, etc.) but the non-Muslims are tortured and killed, but the media can't use the word Islam?

Victims at the mall had to say an Islamic prayer and give Muhammad's mother's name, but the media cannot report events as they took place.

Why is the Muslim world asking this of the media? Why isn't the Muslim world taking this up among its own ranks? Why isn't the Muslim world looking inward to reformation, to address the daily acts of jihad in the cause of Islam?

Further, the word "Islamist" itself is already a concession. Think about it. Do we use "Christianist" (outside a few rabid leftists)? Judaist? Essentially, what does it mean to say that someone or something is "Islamist" as opposed to "Islamic"? Nothing, really, except that the person speaking doesn't want to offend Islam by speaking unwelcome truths about the political nature of the religion.

I have been called the most vile names, and let me assure you that it never entered my mind to respond violently. The idea that the kuffar are responsible for the violence of jihadists is an Islamic supremacist concept.

AFDI has issued an 18-point platform for defeating jihad in America. If Muslim groups in the U.S. were genuinely "moderate," they'd endorse every point. Instead, they smear us as "Islamophobes." It's telling.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com, and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Late night comic Conan O’Brien tweeted Friday night: “Marvel Comics is introducing a new Muslim Female superhero. She has so many more special powers than her husband’s other wives.” The predictable self-righteous firestorm ensued.

O’Brien was referring to “Kamala Khan,” Marvel Comics’ new Muslim superhero, unveiled with great fanfare last week. They are only introducing this Muslim superhero because of the hugely successful post-9/11 campaign by Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies to portray Muslims as victims of “Islamophobia” and “hatred” — when actually the incidence of attacks on innocent Muslims is very low (not that a single one is acceptable or justified), and the entire “Islamophobia” campaign is an attempt to intimidate people into thinking that there is something wrong with fighting against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

Will Kamala Khan fight against jihadis? Will Marvel be introducing a counter-jihad superhero? I expect that the answer is no on both counts.

In any case, O’Brien’s tweet was just a silly quip, but as the Ayatollah Khomeini said, “There is no humor in Islam.” One of those who were offended wrote: “I didn’t know that @ConanOBrien had Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller writing for him now. Interesting.” A legion of Leftists descended upon O’Brien’s Twitter feed, accusing him of being a “f***ing racist scumbag” and “Islamophobic,” and his joke of being “kinda tasteless”; “really ignorant and terrible”; “in very poor taste”; and “f***ing gross and racist.”

“Racist”? What race is Muslim polygamy again? I keep forgetting. O’Brien’s joke has a factual basis. The Qur’an says: “And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (4:3)

But as O’Brien is discovering now, calling attention to uncomfortable truths about Islam is “racist” and wrong, even if they’re undeniably…truths. I am sure that Conan O’Brien will not make this mistake again: almost immediately after people began criticizing him for it, he took the offending tweet down. After all, he wants to stay on television; bringing uncomfortable aspects of Islam to light is quickest way to be read out of polite and decent society. Just ask Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, formerly darlings of the Leftist intelligentsia — until they touched that third rail of American public discourse and dared to criticize the violence and brutality that Islamic jihadists commit and justify by reference to Islamic texts and teachings.

Polygamy devalues women, reducing them to the status of commodities, and stands as an affront to their equality with men as human beings. But none of the enlightened Leftists condemning Conan O’Brien for his little joke would dare speak out for the Muslim women who suffer in polygamous arrangements; to do so would be “Islamophobic,” “racist,” and probably “gross.”

This strange stigmatizing of those who speak out against what is manifestly a legitimate human rights issue is testimony to the effectiveness of the global campaign that Islamic supremacist groups have been carrying out for years to deflect attention away from the reality of Islamic jihad, and to clear away obstacles standing in the way of that jihad. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, has for years been pressing at the UN for resolutions criminalizing criticism of Islam. It routinely ignores how Islamic jihadists quote the Qur’an and invoke Muhammad to justify violence and terrorism, but cries “Islamophobia” when non-Muslims quote those jihadis quoting the Qur’an and invoking Muhammad.

They want to fool people into thinking that non-Muslim “Islamophobes” are responsible for “linking Islam with terrorism,” when actually the ones doing that linking are the jihadis. The objective is to intimidate non-Muslims into thinking that it is “bigoted” and “hateful” to discuss the Islamic motives and goals of jihadis, much less to resist them — so that those jihadis can do their work unopposed and unimpeded.

In the same way, when Conan O’Brien calls attention, in the most light-hearted and glancing way, to the reality of Muslim polygamy, the attention of the fatuous and self-important Left (but I repeat myself) focuses not on the oppression of women under Islamic law, but on Conan O’Brien as “Islamophobic.” The lesson has been reinforced so relentlessly and repeatedly over so long a period now that neither the OIC nor any other Islamic supremacist entity has to utter a word condemning Conan O’Brien before Twitter lights up with condemnations of him from Leftist non-Muslims. They don’t have to ask their instructions any more.

They know: any negative word about the oppression of women in Islam, and indeed, any negative word at all about jihad terror or Islamic supremacism in general, is “racist” and to be rejected with all the scorn and indignation one can muster. Last year I had a very illuminating lunch with a Leftist writer who has attacked me numerous times for “Islamophobia.” In the course of conversation, I asked him if he thought there was a jihad threat at all. He admitted that there was, but claimed that I had wildly exaggerated it.

Very well, I responded, and posited a hypothetical: what would he do if the jihadis really did start mounting attacks in the U.S. with the regularity of their attacks in, say, Nigeria or Thailand? What if Islamic supremacists began demanding accommodations to Islamic law that plainly contradicted Constitutional freedoms? He responded that he thought that if those things happened, people of good will on the Left would stand up and offer resistance.

But he was wrong. They won’t. Because they have been taught for years that any criticism of Islamic jihad terror and oppression, no matter how accurate, no matter how mild, is that most abhorrent of things, “racism.” And so they will most likely accept their subjugation with bland and self-satisfied complacency: they’re subjugated dhimmis in the smoking ruins of a once-great society, but at least they weren’t “Islamophobes.” I hope that if this happens, Conan O’Brien will be ready with an apposite quip – right before he is led away to the reeducation camp.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

New Year's morning is usually a quiet time in downtown Minneapolis, sometimes chosen for the scheduled implosion of vacant old building. Yesterday at 8am and 4 below a building of Somali immigrants exploded. MSP has the most Somalis anywhere outside of Mogadishu. Some have ties to al Qaida. A few were tied to the Kenyan mall massacre. So far, this is just a fire. The FBI is looking into it.

From 2008 to 2011, I was a guest lecturer at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (the primary DHS training facility, located in coastal Georgia) and at Joint Special Operations University (which brings foreign officers to learn of U.S. irregular warfare, located in Tampa). At both venues I was asked to lecture on the history of terrorism.

I did so in an even-handed and comprehensive manner, exploring the issue across place (Europe to East Asia), time (ancient Assyria to al-Qaeda), and ideology (religious: pagan, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim; and political: right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, environmentalist, etc.). Only 14 of the 44 PowerPoint screens in my presentation dealt with Islamic terrorism, although several of those actually mitigated against the concept.

Nonetheless, in June 2009 I was told that I could no longer lecture at FLETC, because the edict had come down from the new Obama administration that “no trainer who uses the term ‘jihad’ shall henceforth be used.” (This was over two years before the Obama administration was openly hostile to realistic training about Islam [1].)

JSOU continued to utilize me until late 2011, when I was told by the course instructor that Muslim student officers had complained that “I talked too much about Islamic terrorism.”

I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before, when references to Islam and jihad were stricken [2] from Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee [3] that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”

Now, the Obama administration — led by Holder — has decided that Islam is a “race,” [4] and therefore to examine or even to adduce a Muslim’s Islamic beliefs about jihad [5], beheading [6], violence against kuffar [7] (“infidels”), or re-establishing a caliphate [8] is tantamount to racism. This administration behavior is rationalized because “federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counter terrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.”

It is difficult to express just how willfully ignorant of reality these statements and accompanying policies are.

Per the immigration example: as over 80% of “undocumented aliens” are from Mexico or another Latin American country [9], it would be foolish, indeed delusionary, to ignore that fact. The same logic applies to directing extra scrutiny towards individuals who hold a set of beliefs that may predispose them to violence against others not of that belief system.

And that is the primary point: Islam is a belief system. Not a race.

Muslims can be of any skin, Bosnian or Turkish, Nigerian, Saudi, Chinese. If American, Muslims can perhaps be of several nationalities. This is equally if not more true of Christians, who can be white Finns, black Ethiopians, brown Lebanese, or Koreans, to name but a few examples. It is not possible to look at someone (sans distinctive clothing) and ascertain whether he or she is Muslim or Christian — or secularist, for that matter.

Advocacy groups and willing dupes in the media and Democrat Party — like Senator Dick Durbin — have foolishly yet successfully conflated race and ideology in the case of only one religion, Islam. They have made examining the latter tantamount to discrimination against the former. No one ever argues that singling out Christians for repression because they hold politically incorrect views about gay marriage or abortion amounts to “racism.”

Beyond the obvious fact that beliefs do not constitute a race, Holder et al. are massively wrong to deny the clear link between certain Islamic beliefs and terrorism.

Currently there are 57 groups on the U.S. State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization list [10]; 38 of these are stridently Islamic in ideology and goals. Ten of these are secular/Leftist, six are nationalist, one is anarchist, and one each is Jewish and Christian. (The latter one — the Japanese, sarin gas-using Aum Shinrikyo — is at best only nominally Christian, and better described as generically apocalyptic.)

So: 67% of the world’s terrorist groups as recognized by the U.S. (more, actually, if State were honest and comprehensive; they should includee Syria’s Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria, etc.) are Muslim.

Since 9/11, 82% of U.S. Department of Justice terrorism convictions have been of Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims comprise less than 1% of the American population. (I accessed this data some time ago; it has since mysteriously disappeared from the DOJ website [11].)

The University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database [12] tracks terrorism incidents from 1970 to today: search for “Islam” and you find almost 5,000 entries. Search for “Christianity” and you will find a grand total of 14.

The NSA could probably save a lot of money — as well as abide by the Constitution — if it simply acknowledged the following:

A person with neither a first nor a last Muslim name stood only a 1 in 500,000 chance of being a suspected terrorist. The likelihood for a person with a first or a last Muslim name was 1 in 30,000. For a person with first and last Muslim names, however, the likelihood jumped to 1 in 2,000 (Levitt & Dubner, Super Freakonomics, 2009, p. 93).

Clearly, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, Islam is the world’s major ideological motivator of terrorism and violence. (I have neither the time, nor the patience, to yet again demonstrate the legitimate Islamic roots of violence. Ray Ibrahim’s brilliant article [13] should be all the proof needed for those able to handle the truth.) Yet Eric Holder and his boss would have the federal authorities most responsible for protecting the public — led by the FBI — pretend that up is down, freedom is slavery, and Islam is peaceful except when “twisted” by a “handful of extremists.”

Instead of ardent Islamic beliefs being treated as a clear marker for potential terrorism, they are now a talisman [14] protecting the holder not just from scrutiny, but suspicion.

Obama and Holder are transforming the U.S. into a dhimmi nation: one that cowers before Islamic law and demands that its non-Muslim citizens — especially its 240 million Christians — meekly accept their second-class status and never broach the glaringly obvious fact of Islamic violence, even if this means making all non-Muslims less safe. The question for those of us in the majority, then: just how long will we put up with such a dangerous policy?

I know, I know: reporting that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is lying is like reporting that humans breathe oxygen. Still, this is a particularly egregious example, and it is important to set the record straight. Hamas-linked CAIR is now defaming Zuhdi Jasser, the nation’s premier (and virtually only) anti-jihad Muslim spokesman. I have had some differences with Jasser (you can see our 2011 debate here) about the nature of Islamic teaching and the necessity of reform in Islam, but there is no doubt that he is a strong voice against Hamas-linked CAIR and other malignant Islamic supremacist forces.

It is also highly likely that Hamas-linked CAIR is lying about Jasser’s supposed attempt to deny religious rights to Muslim military personnel, since Jasser is committed to constitutional freedoms. There is no doubt, in any case, that they’re lying about me. In the first place, I’ve never heard of the Abstraction Fund, which they say funds Jihad Watch. I am not familiar with all those who fund the David Horowitz Freedom Center, with which Jihad Watch is affiliated, and it is possible that Abstraction funds the Center, but they do not fund Jihad Watch directly. (They’re certainly welcome to do so!)

More importantly, Hamas-linked CAIR claims that the Roman Catholic diocese of Sacramento called me a “key leader in the anti-Islam hate movement in the United States.” This is almost certainly a lie, for several reasons. One is that in its initial chest-thumping about the Sacramento bishop caving in to their smear campaign last June, CAIR never mentioned this — and Hamas-linked CAIR has never been one to shy away from using a weapon that their marks hand them. What’s more, I spoke at the event in question, and the diocese of Sacramento had an information booth there — a strange thing for the diocese to have done if they really wanted to shun a leader of a supposed “hate movement.” The official statement that the diocese sent to Kolbe Academy said only this: “The Bishop didn’t think that it was in the best interest of Kolbe Academy to have a controversial speaker at a conference on education.”

See? This is how Hamas-linked CAIR operates: they (and their allies, such as Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media) mount a campaign of defamation against a counter-jihad speaker (and it isn’t just me — they do it to everyone who stands up against jihad terror). A busy and ill-informed official, such as the Bishop of Sacramento, sees this campaign and caves in immediately, not because he agrees with Hamas-linked CAIR’s defamation, but simply because he doesn’t want any “controversy.”

Groups like CAIR and Aslan Media know that it usually suffices just to stir up a spurious “controversy” over a counter-jihad speaker to get that speaker canceled, because big organizations (like the diocese of Sacramento) don’t want to be the focus of endless hysterical “news” stories and unwelcome media attention. Then when they cave, the anti-free speech fascists trumpet this as more evidence of the wickedness of the counter-jihad speaker, even though no judgment was actually made about the correctness of their charges at all: “See? He’s so hateful that the diocese of Sacramento wanted him dropped from a conference” — when actually the only thing that happened was that the jihad enabler kicked up a fuss where people didn’t want any fuss.

It’s an insidious tactic. Hamas-linked CAIR keeps using it because it works, and because the organizations that should be on to this as a tactic and ready to stand up for freedom and human rights are still unaware of it, and ready to cave at the first sign of “controversy.”

By the way, a couple of things the CAIR press release, which has been widely reported upon and picked up by Al Jazeera and other pro-jihad outfits, didn’t mention in connection with the diocese of Sacramento: CAIR and Aslan Media tried the same smear campaign when I debated a couple of Muslim spokesmen in Michigan a few months ago, at another Catholic conference. Not only did Earl Boyea, Bishop of Lansing, not cave, but he came to celebrate Mass at the event. Nor did CAIR bother to quote quote the National Catholic Register calling me “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country,” or Catholic Insight calling me “one of the most insightful and learned scholars of Islam.” Truth doesn’t serve their agenda, doncha know. For CAIR, it never has.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

At this point, how can any rational person believe that Barack Obama is interested in preserving the security of American citizens - even within our own borders? He is actually harboring terrorist groups, and I believe - working in concert with them to trigger some sort of critical event that will be used as an excuse to impose martial law. See below:

Texas Terror Enclave Exposed

Posted By Ryan Mauro On February 25, 2014

The Clarion Project just disclosed the existence of a terrorist enclave in Texas last week, bringing new attention to a network of at least 22 Jamaat ul-Fuqra “Islamic villages” across the country. Newly-declassified documents reveal that the FBI privately considers ul-Fuqra to be a terrorist group, but remains operational in the U.S. because of the State Department.

The “Islamic villages” belong to Muslims of the Americas, an extension of Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani’s Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group. Its headquarters is “Islamberg” in Hancock, N.Y and two of the group’s seized videotapes prove that these sites are used for guerilla warfare training. One recording shows women at Islamberg in military fatigue receiving such instructions.

The FBI files released by Clarion confirm that the most loyal MOA members go to Pakistan for advanced religious and terrorist training under Sheikh Gilani. This travel is apparently done through an MOA entity named the American Muslim Medical Relief Team. The website has photos of members in Kashmir. The MOA has also posted videos of members working at “Gillaniville” under Gilani’s watch.

Last week, The Blaze aired a blockbuster half-hour episode of “For the Record” titled “Sleeper Cell” about Jamaat ul-Fuqra featuring the documents obtained by Clarion. The discovery of the camp near the town of Sweeny in Brazoria County, Texas was covered on “Fox and Friends” and the Fox News website. Media Matters immediately responded with a hit piece describing me as “anti-Muslim” that was then distributed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The Texas enclave has existed since the late 1980s, according to locals interviewed by ACT For America Houston. The FBI documents show that the Bureau discovered it following a tip from an informant in New York and detected the movement of trailers to the site in December 2001.

The site is referred to as “Mahmoudberg” by MOA members. In 2010, an MOA entity named the American Muslim Ladies Club established a Texas chapter at the enclave.

A 2007 FBI document says that the enclave hosts a former leader of the 440-acre “Baladullah” commune in California that was shut down and had armed guards, U-Haul dealership and even an airstrip. Its founder was convicted in 2006 of overseeing a charter school scam at the commune. Other members of Baladullah were arrested for illegal weapons trafficking and murdering a police officer.

One of the most interesting revelations from the Clarion Project report is that a shooting incident at Mahmoudberg took the life of one resident. It was ruled an accident by the police. However, the police were denied access to the trailers and were not allowed to directly interview the women, who covered their faces in the presence of the cops.

The report is a fatal blow to the MOA’s campaign to revamp its image. For example, it established the United Muslim Christian Forum. I attended one of their events and was told by one of the commune leaders that the group was trying “not to get into the bashing business anymore” because “we’re finding that certain things are a little bit too offensive.” He said the group stands by its past statements.

The Texas enclave is also linked to the MOA’s interfaith front. I was given videotape of a United Muslim Christian Forum event in 2009 that featured then-Binghamton Mayor Matthew T. Ryan as a speaker. The Master of Ceremonies was Idris Johnson, the registered agent for a MOA front on Mahmoudberg’s premises called the Muslim Model Community.

Johnson was also arrested for interfering with public duties on February 28, 2013. So was Nuh Abdullah and Muhammed Nurriddine was charged with reckless driving.

Almost every communication I received in response to the Clarion report and coverage on The Blaze and FOX News Channel asked how Jamaat ul-Fuqra/Muslims of the Americas is able to operate in the U.S. if the FBI’s own documents identify it as a terrorist threat.

The answer is the State Department has not designated Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, though it was included in reports about domestic groups in the 1990s. On January 31, 2002, the State Department said:

“Jamaat ul-Fuqra has never been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It was included in several recent annual terrorism reports under “other terrorist groups,” i.e., groups that had carried out acts of terrorism but that were not formally designated by the Secretary of State. However, because of the group’s inactivity during 2000, it was not included in the most recent terrorism report covering that calendar year.”

The State Department’s own standards require it to label ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The three criteria are that the group must be foreign; engaging in terrorist activity or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorism and it must threaten U.S. nationals or national security.

The newly-released FBI documents blow away any argument the State Department could use to defend its negligence. Two smoking gun quotes from a 2007 file are as clear as can be:

“The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

Responsible reporters must relentlessly demand answers from the State Department in the wake of these new revelations.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy contributed to this article.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

USCMO: New Coalition of U.S. Islamic Supremacist Groups to Attempt to Form Voting Bloc

“A national council unifying Muslims in the United States has long been a dream of our community. The goal of the US Council of Muslim Organizations is to help strengthen relationships among the member organizations in order to better serve members of the Muslim community and all Americans.

“A detailed census will allow the larger Muslim community to better participate in our nation’s political process.”

Let the strong-arming begin!

Hamas-CAIR and seven other terror-tied groups will be announcing the formation of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), an umbrella group that will serve as a “representative voice for Muslims as that faith community seeks to enhance its positive impact on society.”

Many of the Muslim groups in this newly formed U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) “operated in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. …

The object of the conspiracy was to support Hamas.

The support will be shown to have take several forms, including raising money, propaganda, proselytizing, recruiting, as well as many other types of actions intended to continue to promote and move forward Hamas’s agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.”

Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support Hamas with ‘media, money and men.’”

According to a US government document Govt. Exh. 21-61, entered into evidence in the largest terror-funding trial in our nation’s history, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which CAIR later joined.

Muslim Brotherhood groups forming this new “coalition” include Muslim American Society (MAS), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA), Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)and Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA).

Stealth jihad on steroids:

“New Coalition of U.S. Islamists to Attempt to Form Voting Bloc,” Counter Jihad Report, March 11, 2014

In 1991, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directed its components to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’” in order to wage “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Seemingly in fulfillment of that directive, eight Muslim groups (seven with solid Islamist records) will announce a coalition on March 12 to increase their political influence.

The new coalition will be announced at the National Press Club. Its name is the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) and one of its objectives is to develop a census that will “create a database that will be used to enhance political participation in upcoming elections.” This coalition undoubtedly will use these census results to make political candidates bend to their will.

The Secretary-General of USCMO is Oussama Jamal. Press reports have alternatively titled him as the President and Vice President of the Mosque Foundation that has extensive links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Jamal accuses the U.S. government of following the “Zionist agenda” in its counter-terrorism investigations and has questioned whether Arabs were actually involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The coalition consists of eight Muslim organizations. The only one without an extensive Islamist record is the Mosque Cares, part of the Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed:

• The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is labeled by the U.S. Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity (specifically part of its Hamas support structure) and an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The FBI has officially stopped using CAIR as an outreach partner and federal prosecutors have definitively said in court that CAIR uses deception to disguise its involvement with terrorists.• The Muslim Alliance in North America is led by a virulently radical cleric named Imam Siraj Wahhaj. The NYPD watches his mosque because of evidence linking it to terrorism and his anti-American record is indisputable. He remains committed to implementing Sharia in America but tells Muslims that it’s better not to talk about it to non-Muslims.• American Muslims for Palestine is a group that holds conferences with an all-star line-up of Islamists that support the Brotherhood and Hamas. Its leaders have spewed anti-American rhetoric, spoken in support of violence and preached that Muslims should launch an intifada in the U.S. modeled after uprisings by Palestinians and Iraqis.• The Muslim American Society was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America” according to federal prosecutors. Some of its chapters held protests in response to the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt.• The Islamic Circle of North America is listed in Muslim Brotherhood documents as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Its national conferences are filled with Islamist speakers and are held jointly with MAS. It is a derivative of the Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat e-Islami and one of its leaders is wanted in Bangladesh for war crimes.• The Muslim Legal Fund of America has strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood, with one of its founders joining the Islamist opposition in Syria. The organization raised money for the defense of terrorists convicted in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. That charity is another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas.• The Muslim Ummah of North America is mentioned in U.S. Muslim Brotherhood documents as one of its components. An internal plan for 1991-1992 tasks its Youth Department/Committee with “arranging the youth’s relationship with ‘MUNA’ [Muslim Ummah of North America]” and “supervising the administrations” of MUNA.

The formation of this coalition is an example of the Brotherhood’s own words being followed.

As mentioned, its 1991 strategy document told its various fronts to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions.’”